We explored a few variants of the base concept during early iteration.
This included using symbols instead of numbers, a sudoku variant where
each row and column could only contain unique values, and pieces that
weren't 2-by-1 in size.
Some of the condition tag variants that our UI/UX designer tested out
with a "worst case scenario" puzzle I set up:
We also explored differnt ways to show that individual conditions had
been met:
After these explorations, we decided that there were several game design
reasons to NOT show feedback each time an individual region's
requirement is correctly met:
1. Accidentally implying that a piece definitely belongs there in the
overall solution. Tricky balance to strike to tell someone that the
condition is met without also implying that that piece is correct.
2. Individual region confirmation is just not as important as overall
board confirmation: You can’t successfully solve a Pips puzzle only
thinking in terms of regions (e.g. you can’t always just meet the
requirements of the first region you see and be correct overall). You
need to think about ALL of the regions and the board generally.
3. There's already a lot going on on the board during gameplay
(visually, the board is changing). It could feel cluttered, especially
for people who are like “yeah I know that’s right... it’s the number 4.
You didn’t need to tell me that.”
4. We don’t want people to think that pieces are locked into place.
Pieces should always feel like they can be picked back up.
5. Given the context of the NYT games portfolio, it made sense to follow
the pattern of other NYT games: The Mini + Sudoku (Tell the player when
they're incorrect, and say nothing if there's no issue).
